The article I linked talks about multiple series set in Tolkien's world.

It also addresses the potential for 'fantasy overkill' after the successes of the LOTR films (in spite of the inferiority of those Hobbit movies,) and 7 seasons of Game of Thrones.

Other things I've read make it sound like what's planned is back story stuff set prior to 'Fellowship of the Ring,' but I wonder if a miniseries reworking of the original trilogy might someday be in the cards.

Anyway, this seems like it will be a long way off, but the price of $200-250 just for the rights means they will probably want to get something on the air as soon as they can.

A losing proposition, IMHO. LOTR fans make Beatles fans look casual in comparison and the chances of it being appealing to the fans are quite slim. Waste of money from Amazon.

Click to expand...

Depends on whether you think your target demographic is a couple thousand, well-read obsessives who will go over every attempt with a fine-toothed comb (and go apoplectic with the instance of every continuity gaffe over social media with the over-torqued spasms similar to that poor Star Wars fan who found himself embarrassed for all time on YouTube)...

OR, casual fans of the stories with little or no allegience to faithful storytelling but rather comfortable supporting another attempt at GOOD storytelling - who probably more accurately number in the scores of millions.

Jeebus! I'm all for more LOTR content as long as it doesn't stray too far from the books.

Click to expand...

This was directly licensed from the Tolkien Estate, so I think they have some say in how the shows are done. They have disowned the Peter Jackson movies for years and years -- despite the fact that the movies made them a great deal of money and sold a helluva lotta books.

This was directly licensed from the Tolkien Estate, so I think they have some say in how the shows are done. They have disowned the Peter Jackson movies for years and years -- despite the fact that the movies made them a great deal of money and sold a helluva lotta books.

Click to expand...

Is that right? I assumed it was like the Jackson license (yes, that's right, I didn't carefully read the article I linked...) that only included LOTR and the Hobbit. Does Amazon own the first age now too? Because THAT would be something. The Silmarillion was Tolkien's life's work, LOTR was just something he tacked onto it after the Hobbit was a success.

Is that right? I assumed it was like the Jackson license (yes, that's right, I didn't carefully read the article I linked...) that only included LOTR and the Hobbit. Does Amazon own the first age now too? Because THAT would be something. The Silmarillion was Tolkien's life's work, LOTR was just something he tacked onto it after the Hobbit was a success.

Click to expand...

Yeah, apparently they made a deal for everything published. I think essentially what Amazon wants is a show that generates the same kind of mass audience as Game of Thrones.

I think the basic deal is: Jackson combined certain scenes and didn't let them play as written; he wrote additional material for certain characters (and even added characters not in the original novels); and the Tolkien family was also held to a fairly cheap licensing contract that was signed decades ago, a contract that they couldn't get out of. So I think it boils down to lack of creative control, changes done for "dramatic" purposes, and getting low money.

This was directly licensed from the Tolkien Estate, so I think they have some say in how the shows are done. They have disowned the Peter Jackson movies for years and years -- despite the fact that the movies made them a great deal of money and sold a helluva lotta books.

Click to expand...

JRR Tolkien sold the film rights to both (and only) The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings in 1969 for tax purposes; everything in those books, including appendices, was available to Peter Jackson, everything not contained therein was not, simple as that.

Christopher Tolkien, JRR's last surviving son, despises Peter Jackson's films... and has done so since the release of The Fellowship of the Ring, that's no secret, but the younger Tolkien brood have both voiced their approval of Jackson's work and appeared in cameos (I believe the Rohan soldier blowing the trumpet in ROTK prior to the Rohirrim riding into the Minas Tirith battle is Royd Tolkien, JRR's great-grandson). That being said, if I was Christopher Tolkien, I wouldn't be happy with the Hobbit films either... I think it's one of the great 'what if's' of recent cinema that Guillermo del Toro had to walk away from that project, alas...

With the Tolkien Estate involved, and the confirmation that they will be telling "unexplored" new stories set in that world, I think it will be a much more conservative show than most of the cable output of late - no excessive blood and boobs in Middle Earth, in other words! - and it may just be The Silmarillion they'll adapt... which would be the natural and logical choice, not to mention a book with enough material to keep them going for a decades' worth of seasons if not much more.

I truly despise Bezos and everything he stands for, but I'll give this series a chance... so long as they keep any and all political propaganda out of it, but I don't think the Tolkien Estate would allow it anyway... let's hope so.

I think the basic deal is: Jackson combined certain scenes and didn't let them play as written; he wrote additional material for certain characters (and even added characters not in the original novels); and the Tolkien family was also held to a fairly cheap licensing contract that was signed decades ago, a contract that they couldn't get out of. So I think it boils down to lack of creative control, changes done for "dramatic" purposes, and getting low money.

Click to expand...

I agree, for the amount of money Amazon have paid they MUST be getting more than just LOTR and The Hobbit! It's a huge amount.

The original deal the Tolkien family did (in 1968) was for 7% of the net ... plus some money up front. Of course New Line did their best to make it look like the movies never made a profit so they wouldn't have to pay. But lawyers were called in and there was a substantial settlement in favour of the Tolkiens.

Definitely it was the STYLE of (parts of) Jackson's LOTR adaption that they didn't care for. Plus, just consider what Jackson what did to The Hobbit! Surely anybody who has read that book can see why the Hobbit films are a dismal failure at capturing much of the mood or intent of Tolkien's story. PJ was much more restrained when he made the LOTR films, but there's still elements of the same sort of thing that he just turned up to eleven in the Hobbit films.

I am skeptical, I don't think Amazon can make a consistently good series from the material but the good thing is I won't have to watch it if I don't like it. Right now there is way too much for me to watch that I am confident I would like, Netflix, Amazon, HBO and even some network TV shows. There is not enough time to watch it all.

As far as Jackson's six movies, I like all of them but I haven't read any of the books.

I think the basic deal is: Jackson combined certain scenes and didn't let them play as written; he wrote additional material for certain characters (and even added characters not in the original novels); and the Tolkien family was also held to a fairly cheap licensing contract that was signed decades ago, a contract that they couldn't get out of. So I think it boils down to lack of creative control, changes done for "dramatic" purposes, and getting low money.

Click to expand...

I also think I read elsewhere in which the "didn't let them play as written" and combo scenes criticism pivoted on Jackson's adoption/use of tropes which I too disliked, and which was carried further in the Hobbit series. Tropes tend to insult the intelligence of the audience, and if it's done for money's sake then it's all the worse.

I'm interested in this Amazon series too. Will be interesting to see how they handle it.